From Peckham Vision
2,991 bytes added ,  14:03, 23 November 2015
*[[Route map]]
*[[:Image:Councillor's briefing January 2007 update.pdf|Councillor's briefing pack]]
*[[Bussey Building]]
*[[Visions for Peckham]]
The Cross River Tram is a project to link Camden, Brixton and Peckham by
tram. The project is was being organised by TfL (Transport for London), for the Cross River Partnership and with the support of the previous London Mayor. See TfL’s background information at [ their website].But the current Mayor has removed the project from TfL's programme planning. In the meantime, the London Assembly Transport Committee and the Cross River Partnership, have confirmed their commitment to the Cross River Tram project, and to continue to press for it to be reinserted in the programme for London's future transport. [ 14 July 2009 LondonSE1 News] Southwark and Lambeth Councils continue to fly the flag for the Cross River Tram  
==Facts about the Cross River Tram==
*The then London Mayor announced a new Two Phase project in September 2007
*Phase one would be a south of the river project, and Phase two would take it to Camden
*After the May 2008 election, the new Mayor announced a review of major transport projects and results of that are now promised for early 2009
*Each tram would be approximately 45m long (two and half times as long as a bendy-bus)
*Would be part of the Oyster system
*Improve transport links between south London and central and north London
The whole project is was intended to run from Camden Town, Euston and Kings Cross in the north, down to Aldwych. It would then goes go across Waterloo Bridge to Waterloo Station where the line divides. One branch will would go down towards Brixton (possibly via the Elephant), and the other branch will go down towards Peckham. The route between the Elephant and Peckham is was still being to be decided, but both the main options avoid Walworth Road and Camberwell. One suggestion follows the route of the 343 bus - down Heygate St, Thurlow St, across Burgess Park and the Wells way and Southampton Way to Peckham. The second option is slightly more direct and crosses Burgess Park to meet Chandler way before arriving in Peckham town centre. There are two route options for crossing the main roads and the pedestrian town square by the Library, and then another two options for getting to the terminus near Peckham Rye station (see [[:Image:CRT_Waterloo-Peckham.pdf|Waterloo-Peckham Section brochure]]). *After the May 2008 election, the new Mayor announced a review of major transport projects and results of that were promised for early 2009*The Mayor announced on 6th November 2008 that "Cross River Tram (cost to complete £1.3bn): Given the lack of funding available to implement the project and the likelihood of not securing additional third party funding, TfL is not in a position to develop the scheme any further."  See [ here], [ here] and [ here] for more. South London political representatives continue to promote the idea of a cross river tram and the possibility of funding from elsewhere.
==Two Phase Tram Project==
Peckham Vision added its voice to the calls for it to cross the river in its first phase, but says it has to link with a tube station, and not just stop at the Aldwych. We need a direct link with the Euro Star and long distant rail links, as well as with the Tube, through Euston, St Pancras/Kings Cross. But if Camden Council won't agree to this, alternatives might be a one-way loop at terminus at Temple on the Embankment or Holborn on Southampton Row? Both stations have nearby roads that might be suitable for a tram one-way system, creating a loop terminus there as well.
The new London Assembly Transport Scrutiny Committee held a [ seminar, on 9th September 2008], on the Cross River Tram and its role in reducing South East London's serious transport deficit. This [ See here] for the submission from Peckham Vision. The meeting heard from TfL that the estimated total cost now in outturn prices is £1.3b, and that TfL's 10 year budget agreed last year has no provision for this cost. Even if this funding were secured, the earliest date for implementation had slipped from 2016 to 2018. On 10th September, the London Assembly agreed a motion in support of exploring all ways to secure the funding for the tram, [ see here. ] The Transport Committee will consder considered this again at its meeting on 16th October 2008. and recommended by majority vote that TfL:* explore all possible funding options for the Cross River Tram in order to come up with a funding package.* publish detailed analysis of appropriate solutions to the problems along the north-south corridor.* continue to work with representatives of affected communities to find solutions to local route issues so not to jeopardise the progress of the scheme. [ See here]for the Committee report. In the meantime, the new Mayor Boris Johnson is currently reviewing all TfL transport projects and budgets, and will be announcing the results in 2009.
See also: [ TfL answers Common Questions]
==Concerns about Tram Depot plans==
There are many local concerns about the proposal promoted by Southwark Council to use a large strategic site in Peckham's town centre for the Tram Depot. The Depot is naturally of huge significance when deciding where the track will exactly run for the Cross River Tram. However, the Depot site search conducted by TfL was described by the Government Planning Inspector as being 'defective'. This was due to the incorrect belief by TfL that this large part of Peckham Town Centre was 'derelict' and unused. This Town Centre location, previously identified in Southwark's Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as Site 63P but now called site 71P, is several acres in size and is currently home to a growing community of artists, faith groups and small businesses, providing employment opportunities for hundreds of people as well as being a keystone to the regeneration of Peckham as a wholetown centre.[ see here] and [ here]
The Inspector rejected the original plan, known as the [[Tram_depot_proposals#Original_Single-Site_Depot_Plans|‘single-site’ plan]], to locate the whole depot in Peckham because of its adverse effects on the town centre. He recommended instead a 'split-site' depot, that is part of the depot in Peckham and part somewhere else (click [[Effects_of_tram_depot|here]] for the Inspector’s report). The implication was that this would be smaller so that it would have less adverse effects on Peckham town centre. It is in fact less than half an acre smaller, and is more intrusive into the town centre. The [[Tram_depot_proposals#Current_Split-Site_Depot_Plans|‘split-site’]] would stable less fewer trams – about 35 compared with the original 48 - but it appears that the repair and maintenance workshops for the whole or major part of the fleet of trams would be on this Peckham site. The In effect, the plan is still to locate the main depot on this plan site, contrary to the reasons for the Inspector's objections to it, and would still sterilise and close off for good this huge site which has a strategic role in realising the potential of the town centre. Click [[Tram_depot_proposals|here]] for comparison of the single-site and split-site plans.
In January 2007 Peckham Vision held an information day to give all Southwark’s Councillors the opportunity to get to know the proposed tram depot site in Peckham, its current users and understand its future potential (click [[:Image:Councillor's briefing January 2007 update.pdf|here]] for the briefing pack prepared for the councillors). One of the Councillors said they had been persuaded by the plan to build a depot on site because some years back officers told them it would regenerate Peckham by having housing and commerce on top of the depot. In fact, property experts say it would be too expensive and the current plans do not include this. The original reasons for Peckham being selected as a preferred depot location no longer stand up, and need to be looked at again.
<googlemap version="0.9" lat="51.469288" lon="-0.065532" zoom="16" width="100%" height="425" controls="large">3#FFFF0200 (#33FF000C)51.469249, -0.06699151.469542, -0.0653651.469528, -0.06486751.469555, -0.06381551.469221, -0.06368651.46906, -0.06486751.468606, -0.06471651.46886, -0.06267851.469649, -0.06325751.469983, -0.06381551.470197, -0.06443751.47017, -0.06572551.469996, -0.06756551.469886, -0.06835351.469769, -0.06827351.469802, -0.06792451.469385, -0.06769651.46948, -0.0670933#B22B5BD9 (#662F5FDD)51.46906, -0.06486951.469221, -0.06369251.469553, -0.0638251.469527, -0.06486451.46953, -0.06502551.46906, -0.064869</googlemap>Depot plans shown in red, planned bus depot in blue. A downloadable map is available [[:Image:Site_63PSite 63P.jpg|herecenter|400px]].
==Tram Depot Impact==
Image:PV's one-way route to Ilderton Road Depot.png|TfL's routes and PV's 'one-way loop' connected to possible Ilderton Road Depot
==New tram depot sites found October 2008==
Just before the Mayor stopped further tram planning, in October 2008, [[Media:09.04 depot location TN72 Stage 4a Depot Report volume 1 v0.2 O275.pdf|TfL had received a report (see summary at pages 5&6)]] showing that the Peckham town centre site was the wrong location for the tram depot. Thus Peckham Vision's call throughout the campaign, for a review of the flawed location investigation and report, had proved justified. The new report showed that Peckham town centre was at the bottom of a list of 6 sites investigated, and as a location failed for technical, operational and cost reasons as well as the detrimental effect on the town centre. Moreover the new report identified a suitable location elsewhere. So even when the tram becomes a live project again there will be no need to safeguard land in the town centre for the depot. In the April/May 2009 consultations the Council's Issues and Options paper included the alternative Options for the site, and began to consider for the first time the potential major contribution that site 63P/71P can make to the regeneration of Peckham Town Centre, and also to greater Peckham as a whole. This site is indeed a major Opportunity Site which needs to be considered as such in the PNAAP.
==External links==